Ramp traps versus pitfall traps for collecting epigeal arthropods: a case study in a coniferous forest in Southwest Finland

dc.contributor.authorÖsterman Emil M.
dc.contributor.authorHopkins Tapani
dc.contributor.authorZamani Alireza
dc.contributor.organizationfi=Turun yliopiston biodiversiteettiyksikkö|en=Biodiversity Unit of the University of Turku|
dc.contributor.organization-code1.2.246.10.2458963.20.85536774202
dc.converis.publication-id381063193
dc.converis.urlhttps://research.utu.fi/converis/portal/Publication/381063193
dc.date.accessioned2025-08-28T00:28:58Z
dc.date.available2025-08-28T00:28:58Z
dc.description.abstract<p>Pitfall traps are commonly used to sample epigeal arthropods, but they are not ideal in areas where soil disturbance is restricted or not possible. Ramp traps are a less well known alternative that does not require excavation. To compare the performance of the two trap types in capturing epigeal arthropods, both ramp (n = 12) and pitfall traps (n = 12) were set up in four paired transects in Korkiakallio forest (Turku, Finland), in summer 2022. The project team identified adult spiders to the species level, and other arthropods to the family level. Ramp traps captured significantly more individuals of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), beetles (Coleoptera), true bugs (Hemiptera), and spiders of the species <em>Minyriolus pusillus</em> (Wider, 1834) (Araneae: Linyphiidae), while pitfall traps captured more myriapods (Myriapoda). Our findings provide additional evidence that ramp traps are not only a viable alternative to pitfall traps in challenging environments, but also complement (and should ideally be used alongside) pitfall traps.<br></p>
dc.format.pagerange78
dc.format.pagerange87
dc.identifier.eissn2160-0651
dc.identifier.jour-issn1488-8386
dc.identifier.olddbid205786
dc.identifier.oldhandle10024/188813
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.utupub.fi/handle/11111/31959
dc.identifier.urlhttps://doi.org/10.1080/14888386.2023.2294795
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:fi-fe2025082787121
dc.language.isoen
dc.okm.affiliatedauthorÖsterman, Emil
dc.okm.affiliatedauthorHopkins, Tapani
dc.okm.affiliatedauthorZamani, Alireza
dc.okm.discipline1181 Ecology, evolutionary biologyen_GB
dc.okm.discipline1181 Ekologia, evoluutiobiologiafi_FI
dc.okm.internationalcopublicationnot an international co-publication
dc.okm.internationalityInternational publication
dc.okm.typeA1 ScientificArticle
dc.publisherTaylor & Francis
dc.publisher.countryUnited Kingdomen_GB
dc.publisher.countryBritanniafi_FI
dc.publisher.country-codeGB
dc.relation.doi10.1080/14888386.2023.2294795
dc.relation.ispartofjournalBiodiversity
dc.relation.issue1
dc.relation.volume24
dc.source.identifierhttps://www.utupub.fi/handle/10024/188813
dc.titleRamp traps versus pitfall traps for collecting epigeal arthropods: a case study in a coniferous forest in Southwest Finland
dc.year.issued2024

Tiedostot

Näytetään 1 - 1 / 1
Ladataan...
Name:
Österman et al. (2024) Ramp traps vs pitfall traps.pdf
Size:
5.23 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format